SynthesisSurgical endoscopy2025
Minimally invasive liver surgery for perihilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma: systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies.
Synthesis in Surgical endoscopy, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- From scalpel to console: a bibliometric and knowledge-mapping analysis of robot-assisted cholangiocarcinoma surgery.Journal of robotic surgery · 2026Article
- Comparative Outcomes of Minimally Invasive Surgical Approaches on Patient Recovery: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Surgical management of intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma and combined hepatocellular-cholangiocarcinoma: a narrative review of principles, technical nuances, and emerging strategies.Journal of liver cancer · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe implementation of minimally invasive liver surgery (MILS) for perihilar (PHC) and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma (IHC) remains limited and a systematic review including only comparative studies of MILS versus the open approach is lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the safety and efficacy of minimally invasive surgery in patients with hilar and intrahepatic cholangiocarcinomas.
methodsSystematic review in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases for original studies comparing at least five patients undergoing MILS with open liver surgery for PHC and IHC. Meta-analysis included the primary outcomes of morbidity and mortality. Secondary outcomes included post-operative outcomes, recurrence, disease-free survival, and resection margins.
resultsOverall, 37 comparative non-randomised studies with 4863 patients were included, of which 24% PHC and 76% IHC. In 21 studies, propensity score matching was performed. In total, 2106 laparoscopic, 75 robotic, and 2662 open procedures were analysed. The conversion rate was median 11.5% [IQR 10.0-12.5]. MILS probably resulted in reduced rates of major morbidity, 13.3% vs 18.8% (OR 0.75, 95%CI 0.62-0.90), mortality, 3.0% vs 4.5% (OR 0.69, 95%CI 0.49-0.97), and shorter hospital stay, 8.0 vs 10.9 days (MD -2.1, 95%CI -2.8 - -1.5). MILS resulted in higher rate of R0 resections in PSM cohort, 90.4% vs 81.4%, (OR 1.40, 95%CI 1.13-1.74) and better 3-year disease-free survival rate (49.9% vs 38.5%, HR
conclusionThis systematic review of non-randomised comparative studies suggests that MILS for PHC and IHC may result in a similar safety profile with benefits in patient recovery and oncological outcomes as compared to OLS. Prospective comparative studies, especially including robotic MILS, are warranted.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.